Thu Mar 15 2001 07:41:
This New Scientist article is an intruiging mix of novel ideas (the probability that a randomly chosen program is decidable, a halting problem for a counterfactual Turing machine which can solve the regular halting problem) and complete crap reporting.
As far as I can tell, it's treating riffs on the Incompleteness Theorem as though they were more disturbing than the Incompleteness Theorem itself. And there is nothing more disturbing than the Incompleteness Theorem, jaded though we are in this modern age to the full scope of its terror.